Once Again on Red Guards Austin: Lackeyism and U.S. Empire

Red Guards Austin’s (RGA) recent reply to our polemic RGA Is Not an MLM
Organization provides us with more negative examples of the anti-people
orientation and practice that revolutionaries in the U.S. need to combat
and overcome. In their reply, RGA claims that we don’t have
“credentials” to talk about revolutionary politics, distorts quotes from
our document, and obscures basic geopolitical realities to justify their
pro-imperialist and revisionist stands. RGA’s document itself is not
actually written to refute our document, but rather to reassure their
followers—most of whom seem not to have read our document—that RGA
is correct, and that by extension they are correct for following RGA’s
so-called leadership. The title itself, One More Time for Those in the
Back, positions RGA as a teacher, leading a class, with their facebook
lackeys as the “good students” and those who disagree with RGA as
students in the back who are not “listening up.”1 This relative
positioning reveals a lot about how RGA imagines themselves, namely as
bourgeois figures of authority. This idea is reinforced throughout their
document at every level, and this practice further exposes their
fundamentally anti-people outlook and politics.

It’s worth restating that in our last document we concluded that RGA is
not a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (MLM) organization, and that they lack
clarity on the most fundamental and basic lessons of MLM. This was
demonstrated through analysis of a number of their documents and
statements. These statements included a position paper, analyses of the
present situation in this country, reportbacks on RGA’s events,
statements about international groups, and more. Our polemic offered a
detailed analysis of how the content of these statements negated
numerous lessons learned through the history of the International
Communist Movement (ICM).

We will begin this document by analyzing, side by side, what we said in
our polemic, and what RGA said about our document. Through this analysis
we aim to demonstrate their deep-seated opportunism and willingness to
distort, misquote, and misrepresent what others write and do. We hope
that this will clarify the unprincipled and bourgeois way in which RGA
approaches political struggle. We will then discuss in greater detail a
few criticisms of RGA’s politics which we raised in our initial polemic.
We will primarily focus on RGA’s negation of dialectical materialism and
their bourgeois understanding of the united front. We hope to both
further clarify the MLM understanding of these topics and demonstrate
the deep-seated metaphysical views which form the foundation of RGA’s
politics.

It is also our hope that through this exposition, comrades can see the
underlying lackeyism which is fundamental to RGA’s approach to politics.
The proletarian approach to politics analyzes material reality through
collective discussion and, in doing so, provides the basis for the
people to methodically advance the struggle to overcome all oppression
and exploitation. In contrast, lackeyism encourages a mentality of
avoiding, obscuring, and mystifying the key political questions of our
moment in favor of currying favor with power and thereby builds
unprincipled political unities based on opportunism, convenience, and
slavish deference to authority.

This lackeyism is evident in RGA’s approach to both questions of local
political work and in their analysis of the international situation—in
particular in their assessment of the political character of groups like
the Syrian People’s Protection Units (YPG). RGA’s reductionist analysis
and lackeyist approach to politics encourages people not to examine
questions concretely, but instead to follow the line that their
“leadership” has developed based on reductionist and metaphysical
dualisms such as “us versus them” and “revolutionary versus fascism.”
RGA has innovated new ways of reducing revolutionary principles to
counterrevolutionary soundbites, a process endemic to the bourgeois
world order and constantly refined by various pro-state interests in the
U.S. including its vast NGO apparatus. RGA’s blatant distortions of
Maoism, and their rabid support for the lackeys of U.S. imperialism in
Syria, should sound loud alarm bells to revolutionaries in the U.S. that
RGA is not to be trusted, and indicate that they see fit to mingle with
some of the most negative forces of our times. Historically, these have
been telltale signs of a deep betrayal of the people’s cause, and have
provided fertile ground for active attempts to stifle revolutionary
developments.

1. A Comparison of Quotes

In One More Time For Those in the Back RGA repeatedly misquoted our
polemic and attributed to us positions and ideas which we have never
supported. By placing RGA’s quotes side by side with what we actually
wrote, we hope to reveal their tendency to distort what others write in
order to make themselves look better. This is a deeply opportunist
practice that is in contradiction to the MLM approach of dealing with
criticism honestly and as objectively as possible.

On Antifa and the Question of What is a Primary Contradiction

MP: “RGA promotes antifa work under its command as the primary
task.” In quoting this we made reference to RGA’s document On the Rise
of White, Right Wing Terrorism in the US in which they stated “Fascism
must be resisted at all costs and we must build a popular antifascists
[sic] movement—this is our crucial task.”2

RGA: “We also do not consider this [antifascism] to be the
‘primary task.’ Our documents since our founding have insisted that
building the party is the *principal *task of revolutionaries.”3

Commentary: While RGA has nominally upheld the idea that building the
party is the principal task of revolutionaries,4 they have also
claimed that building a popular antifa movement is the “crucial task”
and repeatedly promoted this as the key link politically. This is
evident in their claims that “antifascism is first and foremost
internationalism”5 and that “antifascism means serving the
people.”6 Instead of dealing with the differences between
anti-fascism, internationalism, and serving the people, RGA lumps these
all together, negating the important qualitative differences between the
three. We discuss this approach in further detail below.

In our view, the principal task of revolutionaries cannot be reduced to
party building but is instead situation specific. At a certain moment it
may be most important to sum up lessons from a recent failure, at
another to lead a strike, and at another to engage in self-defense
against attacks by the state or reactionary forces. In his text, On
Contradiction, Mao describes this principle when he states, “when a
task, no matter which, has to be performed, but there is as yet no
guiding line, method, plan or policy, the principal and decisive thing
is to decide on a guiding line, method, plan or policy.”7 To claim
that the principal task of revolutionaries in this country is to build
the party is a metaphysical, “one-size-fits-all” approach to politics;
this approach is related to their claims that antifascism, serving the
people, and internationalism are all effectively the same thing. We
analyze RGA’s metaphysics in detail in the next section of this
document.

MP: “RGA states ‘Antifascism is first and foremost internationalism.’ On
the contrary, antifascism needs to be seen as antifascism. Antifascism
can contribute to revolutionary internationalism, as it did in many ways
during World War II, through international solidarity for revolutionary
forces who were often on the front lines against fascism. Such was the
case among many partisan forces in Europe, and among the Chinese
communists who were fighting the Japanese invaders.

“But opposition to fascism can also harm revolutionary forces if
non-proletarian politics are in command. The unprincipled united front
policies orchestrated by the Comintern under Dimitrov and Stalin in the
approach to and during World War II often resulted in a withdrawal of
support from mass struggles. This occurred in the U.S. when—as part of
the Comintern’s Popular Front policy—CPUSA de-emphasized support for,
and ties with, southern black workers and sharecroppers, and instead
focused on building influence among white liberals. This was also
reflected in the CPUSA’s increased support for President Roosevelt’s
reelection in 1936, and their decision to shut down the militant and
widely read Southern Worker newspaper in 1937. Not coincidentally, in
cities such as Birmingham, Alabama, a large number of black people left
the party that same year.

“Later during WW II, the Comintern promoted the Nationalist Party (KMT)
in China as the primary anti-Japanese force, and instructed the Chinese
Communist Party to defer to the KMT. When the Nationalists launched
efforts to exterminate the CCP and its supporters, the Comintern’s
response was to encourage the CCP to “bargain” away its base areas in
order to pacify Chang Kai-shek. Smartly, the CCP did not heed this
advice, and Mao preemptively attacked Chang’s invading army.
Subsequently, through its all-around correct political line, the CCP was
able to unite all of China in resistance to the Japanese invaders, and
later achieved liberation of the entire country and the establishment of
a dictatorship of the proletariat.”8

RGA: “They attack us for suggesting that antifascism is first and
foremost internationalism, but the truth of this statement is
particularly clear when a simple look around reveals that every
contemporary brand of fascism in the US embraces aggressive nationalism.
While obviously not everything in history that has ever called itself
antifascism has understood the necessity of internationalism being a
core value, the fact that MP suggests that genuine antifascism is not
also anti-imperialist, pro-people, and internationalist shows a
remarkably dull perception of what we are actually about when we oppose
fascism. Imperialism, hyper-nationalism, and white supremacy all go into
the mix of most US fascist organizations. We attack the problem at its
root instead of just looking at the branches.”9

Commentary: Either RGA did not bother to read what we wrote, or they did
read it, but decided that they would look better if they could convince
their readers that we do not believe anti-fascism can be
anti-imperialist, pro-people, and internationalist. The former is
typical of dogmatists who do not bother to investigate situations
because they assume they already have all the answers. The latter is the
stuff of the most vile revisionism and bourgeois attempts to discredit
Marxism.

In our document, we analyzed a number of cases in which antifascism was
not internationalism, including aspects of Stalin and Dimitrov’s
formulation of the Popular Front Against Fascism described above. In
doing so, we highlighted how an incorrect approach to antifascism can
and has set back revolutionary movements internationally, thereby
functionally supporting the interests of the imperialists instead of the
broad masses of people. In our view these are valuable lessons from the
ICM that Maoists should take seriously. In contrast, despite RGA’s claim
to understand how and when antifascism is internationalism, they
actually demonstrate a liquidationist and reductionist view of the
question.

For example, when discussing organizing “workplace struggles, organizing
against benefit cuts, or directly feeding and clothing working-class
communities,” RGA subordinates all of these struggles to antifascism:
“All of these fronts no matter where we are must be considered as part
of our antifascist work, which must inform our tactics.”10 By
subordinating all these particular struggles to antifascism, RGA
demonstrates that they see antifascism as the “key link.”

In our original polemic, we discussed various lessons from the ICM which
contradict RGA’s theory and practice. They refused to grapple with these
basic points, instead pretending that they have “the answers” without
bothering to do basic investigation. This is indicative of their
tendency to position themselves as experts to preemptively dismiss
criticisms levied against them. In this particular instance, this
practice was coupled with an attempt to discredit our group by claiming
that “MP suggests that genuine antifascism is not also anti-imperialist,
pro-people, and internationalist.” On the contrary, RGA’s conception of
the anti-fascist struggle paves over the difference between principled,
pro-people anti-fascism and liquidationism.

On RGA’s Support for the U.S. Imperialist Backed YPG

MP: “RGA has promoted uncritical support for the YPG. In a mock-funeral
held in Austin, Texas for American fighters killed in Rojava they
stated, “Today it does not concern us what leftist school of thought
these comrades belonged to, what matters to us is that they have given
their lives in the same spirit of internationalism and revolution which
we hold so dear. All revolutions demand blood.” For RGA, political
content is less important than bloodshed and nominal support for
revolution. In contrast, MLM demands principled political unity based on
grappling with the contradictions of the moment and upholding the
lessons of the history of the ICM. This applies to united fronts as
well, as spelled out in the TPK/ML’s statement. By failing to concretely
analyze the situation in Rojava and Syria, RGA negates the importance of
politics, instead emphasizing liberal unity based on anti-fascism. By
seeing fascism, in the form of ISIS, as the “real evil,” they endorse
forces who are increasingly functioning as a proxy for the U.S.
imperialists.”11

RGA: “MP falsely states that we show “unabashed” and “uncritical”
support for YPG/J. Of course they do not bother to engage with anything
but a solidarity video made for US martyrs of the YPG. It is correct
that we did not criticize YPG during a memorial for martyrs. To suggest
that such a place is appropriate to criticize is farcically
unprincipled; we honored their courage and their sacrifice.”12

Commentary: To support progressive people who died fighting against
fascists is one thing. To say that the fighters of a proxy force for an
imperialist nation “have given their lives in the same spirit of
internationalism and revolution that we hold so dear” is quite another.
One must ask, what sort of internationalism and revolution is RGA
promoting if they think the YPG fights in the same spirit? The YPG has
been instrumental in furthering the interests of U.S. imperialism in the
region by coordinating the slaughter of civilians in the race against
the Russian Imperialists—and their compradors in the Syrian
Government—to redivide Syria.

This is evident in Mazlum Kobane’s—commander of the SDF and member of
the YPG—recent statements that the YPG has developed a “strategic
relationship” with the U.S. In the interview, Kobane goes so far as to
justify imperialist intervention in the region, including by the U.S.,
as part of these countries’ “responsibilities” to “eradicate terrorism.”
Based on this comprador logic, which justifies imperialist intervention
and invasion of other countries, Kobane concludes “we want the United
States to stay here.”13

This strategic alliance is in line with the U.S.’s long-term plans in
the region, as should be clear by the fact that the U.S. state has
armed, trained, advised, and directed the YPG and SDF.14 The U.S. has
established a number of permanent bases in northern Syria, as was
recently leaked by Turkey’s state-run news company, Anadolu Agency.15
Trump also recently approved a new $393 million military “aid” package
for the YPG and related forces which includes heavy weapons, numerous
armored vehicles, 12,000 AK-47’s, and 6,000 machine guns.16 This is
part of the U.S.’s longer term strategy in the region now that ISIS has
largely been defeated and the U.S. controls approximately twenty-eight
percent of the territory in Syria.17 As part of this plan, the U.S.
is working to have the YPG become the leading force in a planned 30,000
strong army—which they insist is simply a “border-guard.”18

RGA seeks to downplay this strategic alliance by stating “the YPG/J has
accepted US imperialist aid something many legitimate revolutions have
done when facing a massive threat posed by groups like Daesh.”19
However, the dishonesty of this description of the situation should be
clear based on the above information about the YPG’s relationship with
the U.S. By reference to the threat of ISIS, RGA justifies the YPG’s
role as U.S. comprador and thereby justifies U.S. imperialist
intervention in Syria. In our view, there has not been a single
“legitimate revolution” which forged a strategic—as opposed to
tactical or temporary—alliance with an imperialist power; to do so is
to betray the cause of revolution.

Is it correct to call a person who died fighting for U.S. imperialism an
internationalist and revolutionary martyr? Not if one has an
understanding of revolution and internationalism based in MLM. As Lenin
stated: *“There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and
that is—working whole-heartedly for the development of the
revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own
country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this
struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without
exception.”20 *In contrast, RGA seems to see the YPG’s efforts to
become a U.S. proxy as revolutionary and internationalist. Anyone who
supports the YPG in the name of internationalism is negating the MLM
understanding of internationalism.

What’s more, RGA states that we distorted their views on the YPG by only
engaging with their solidarity video. They further implied that they
have previously criticized the YPG or clarified the divided nature of
the group, and that we simply overlooked such a document or purposely
did not address it. We cited the video in particular because it was
indicative of RGA’s line on the YPG, and, other than One More Time for
Those in the Back, we cannot find a single document by RGA which even
acknowledges, let alone criticizes, the YPG’s cooperation with U.S.
imperialism. The only criticism we can find of the Kurdish forces in
Syria that RGA has published is this statement: “While we are Maoists
who do not share their Democratic Confederalist ideology, we too are
inspired by their commitment to revolutionary armed struggle, especially
by the groups who are fighting Daesh (ISIS/ISIL).”21 This does not
adequately address the politics of the YPG or clarify its relation to
U.S. imperialism.

RGA’s support for these forces was not limited to erroneously claiming
that they are committed to “revolutionary armed struggle.” The quoted
document also contains a call for readers to donate to an RGA fundraiser
“to send anti-fascists to Rojava.” This amounts to raising funds to send
people to fight for U.S. interests in the region. This imperialist
lackeyism is justified by claims that “The city of Raqqa is a Daesh
stronghold and Daesh poses the most immediate threat to the masses of
people—Arab and Kurd alike.”22 Instead of analyzing the situation,
and understanding that imperialist forces such as the U.S. are the
dominant oppressors of the masses—as is evident by the YPG’s
coordination with and participation in U.S.-led coalition, including
brutal bombings that have shown disregard for the lives of civilian
populations23—RGA uses a dualistic logic of “revolutionaries vs.
fascism” to conclude that the fascists of ISIS were the dominant enemy
of the people of the region at the time. This reductionist analysis
serves to justify RGA’s opportunist support of the proxy force of U.S.
imperialism.

This is coupled with RGA’s claim that the YPG, PKK, and related forces
are “progressive bourgeois nationalists,” and “the best existing
representatives of the oppressed Kurdish nation.”24 In reality, their
strategic alliance with U.S. imperialism means that these forces are the
best representatives of the Kurdish comprador bourgeoisie, but not the
Kurdish nation, and certainly not the Kurdish proletariat. In discussing
the national question Lenin was clear that Marxists should always give
their “independent appraisal” before supporting a national liberation
struggle. In particular he emphasized the importance of “taking into
consideration the conditions of capitalist development and the
oppression of the proletarians of various nations by the united
bourgeoisie of all nationalities, as well as the general tasks of
democracy, first of all and most of all the interests of the proletarian
class struggle for socialism.”25 He also warned that “workers who
place political unity with “their own” bourgeoisie above complete unity
with the proletariat of all nations, are acting against their own
interests, against the interests of socialism and against the interests
of democracy.”26 This is the case with any members of the Kurdish
working class who join the YPG and related U.S.-backed Kurdish forces.

Lenin was also quite clear that imperialist states will, at times,
sponsor bourgeois national movements in order to further their own
interests and gain a foothold against a rival imperialist power. In
these cases, he argues that it is the duty of revolutionaries to oppose
these national movements, much as Marx and Engels opposed the Czech and
South Slav national movements in 1848, which “were in fact reactionary
nations, and outposts of tsarism.”27 In line with this spirit, we
believe that Maoists today must oppose the actions of the YPG which is
not a genuine expression of the Kurdish people’s struggle for national
liberation, but rather an outpost for U.S. imperialism in Syria.28

MP: “Some, including RGA, have looked to the YPG, a group affiliated
with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, as a principled anti-fascist and
pro-people force in the region. The YPG has been a key organization
fighting against ISIS affiliated groups in northern Syria, and has also
defended the semi-independent territory of Rojava. However, over the
past year the YPG has engaged in close collaboration with the U.S.
state’s armed forces. This consolidation to the camp of U.S.
imperialism, as well as the YPG’s participation in the ongoing slaughter
of civilians throughout Syria by U.S. airstrikes, clearly demonstrates
that their politics are a dead-end for the liberation of the Kurdish and
other peoples[...]Revolutionaries must support democratic ideas and
struggles while simultaneously opposing and rejecting arguments that
subordinate mass struggles and national movements to the interests and
initiative of oppressors such as the U.S. imperialists. The case of the
YPG is no exception. However, RGA has promoted uncritical support for
the YPG.”

And: “This does not mean that we should support ISIS because the U.S. is
opposed to it. Instead, we must support a revolutionary path necessary
to advance the struggles of the people against their oppressors—the
most fundamental of which are the imperialists—and struggle against
deviations from this path, in particular the willingness to subordinate
organizational initiative to imperialist interests.”29

RGA: “On the contrary, MP’s cheap view is to ignore the democratic
content of the YPG/J and instead (!) to play up the “anti-imperialist”
content of Daesh! This puts them sadly close to the hard-Trot defense of
Daesh by groups like the Sparticists. US imperialism, like its ally
Turkey, is more likely to find common ground with Daesh long term as it
has done in the region by waging war against a group to turn around and
support it later, or inversely by supporting a group to make war on it
later. US imperialism is no one’s friend, and it changes up regularly
whom it works with and whom it fights; it can and does at times even
support both sides. There is no sense in ignoring the evidence that US
imperialism has provided aid to Daesh while claiming to fight it or
actually fighting it.”30

Commentary: Our initial statement was not primarily about criticizing
the YPG and their role as a U.S. proxy in the region, but rather about
RGA’s uncritical acceptance and support for the YPG. We spelled out the
divided character of the YPG, the role it has played in fighting against
ISIS, and what we have seen as its process of development towards
consolidation as a proxy force for U.S. imperialist interests in the
region. We also included links to several articles in a footnote that
highlight how the U.S. played a key role in supporting the rise of ISIS
in the region.

To avoid dealing with our criticism of their uncritical support for a
force that has become a U.S. proxy, RGA claims that we ignore the
democratic content of the YPG, and that we support ISIS, or are at least
close to doing so. RGA either did not read our document very closely at
all, or is intentionally distorting what we wrote in an opportunist
attempt to portray us as an unprincipled force and compare us with
Trotskyists.

MP: “As Ganapathi, Chairman of the Communist Party of India-Maoist said
in 2009, revolutionaries must see the basis to unite the masses in
Muslim countries against imperialism, stating:

“See, Islamic jihadist movements have two aspects: one is their
anti-imperialist aspect, and the other their reactionary aspect in
social and cultural matters. Our party supports the struggle of Muslim
countries and people against imperialism, while criticising and
struggling against the reactionary ideology and social outlook of Muslim
fundamentalism. It is only Maoist leadership that can provide correct
anti-imperialist orientation and achieve class unity among Muslims as
well as people of other religious persuasions.”

“Opportunists and reactionaries have little patience for these
inconvenient “details.” Hence, while RGA may not have endorsed U.S.
bourgeois elections, when it comes to U.S. military adventures abroad,
they can give a pass, as long as blood is involved, together with the
chance to do a photoshoot with “antifa” oriented fighters.”31

RGA: “We take no issue at all with the content of the Ganapathy quote
which MP uses to imply that we oppose Muslims generally. This false
conflation of Daesh with Muslims is akin to the right suggesting that
all Muslims are like Daesh. MP’s suggestion that our opposing Daesh
means we oppose Muslims generally is disgusting and should be swept
away.”32

Commentary: In no way did our document state or imply that RGA
opposes Muslims in general. Instead, it criticized RGA’s line of
uncritical support for the YPG, and showed how their belief that the YPG
is a revolutionary and internationalist organization has led RGA to
support the interest of U.S. imperialism in Syria. Given the
antagonistic contradiction in Syria between imperialist powers and the
oppressed people, this amounts to opposing liberation of the Syrian
masses, in favor of supporting an oppressed nationality comprador force.

The history of the ICM make it clear that imperialists will, at times,
support elements of an oppressed nation if it can give them a foothold
against a rival imperialist power. The lessons of MLM make it clear that
Maoists must oppose these reactionary compradors in order to support the
genuine liberation of oppressed people. To do otherwise is to lapse into
social-chauvinism and support imperialist interests or imperialist
aspirations. RGA was either so confused by this basic point that they
really believe we were calling them Islamophobic, or they deliberately
misrepresented what we said to make us appear ridiculous and
unprincipled.

On Mass Proletariat’s Approach to Political Orientation

MP: In our document Serve the People: Become One with the People
we state, “For the last six months members of our collective have joined
workers in their daily struggles on the job. While it is too early to
provide a comprehensive summation of our experiences thus far inside
these work places, we offer the following observations which we
think may be of use to collectives attempting to forge mass links
through fusing with the masses.” We also stated that “Building sustained
links with mass contacts has proven to be vital not only to workplace
organizing but to our early attempts at neighborhood organization.”33

RGA: “MP, by their own admittedly limited scope, chooses (at least
according to their blog anyway) to focus only on organizing one job
site. This is syndicalism, which avoids intervention in the mass
movement for the sake of economism.”34

Commentary: RGA either didn’t bother to read even the second sentence of
our document Serve the People: Become One with the People—not to
mention our other documents—or they simply lied about our documents to
support their claims that we are engaged in syndicalism. Either way,
this is a negation of Maoist politics, but both of these practices are
quite typical among Trotskyists.

MP: Here are a few statements from our political documents which
summarize some of the work that we have been doing and some key lessons
learned:

“Since the national meeting of the Maoist Communist Group in April
[2016], we in Boston have been engaged in sustained investigation and
struggle into the internal contradictions within our
group[...]Externally, we have been focused on outreach, propaganda
and agitation work in Dorchester. This is a form of social investigation
to determine contradictions which define the situation in Dorchester
and, more broadly, Boston as a whole. These investigations have also
included prolonged follow-up meetings with contacts to explore mutual
grounds for political development in a clear and non-mystified
manner.”35

“In the wake of recent acts of police violence in Louisiana and
Minnesota, members of Mass Proletariat attended a meeting for the
planning of a left unity rally as part of the national upsurge in public
protests against police violence. At both the meeting, and at the
subsequent rally, our comrades pursued the two-line struggle, putting
forth the distinction between reformist politics which diffuse the
correct ideas of the masses and proletarian politics which concentrate
the correct ideas of the masses.”36

“Following the decision last week for the People’s Forum to become a
weekly event, our comrades met with a contact to continue the
discussion. The People’s Forum was created in an effort to go beyond the
organizational form of reformist marches, and build a discussion and
exchange of experiences that could serve as a basis for building
proletarian power.”37

“Since this summer [2016], Mass Proletariat engaged in a work place
struggle in Boston. The struggle comprised two fronts: struggle against
the oppression of the workers at the hands of the reactionary
capitalists, and the struggle to show the basis for revolutionary
politics among the workers in the face of the dominant ideology of
reform and trade-unionism. Before we joined the struggle there were
positive elements in the workers’ ranks.”38

“For the last six months [starting in early 2017] members of our
collective have joined workers in their daily struggles on the job.
While it is too early to provide a comprehensive summation of our
experiences thus far inside these work places, we offer the following
observations which we think may be of use to collectives attempting to
forge mass links through fusing with the masses.”39

RGA: “The criticism contained in the recent polemic issued against us by
Mass Proletariat (MP) is really nothing new. We have heard so much of
this before from a few individuals in revisionist organizations placed
indirectly, and we are glad to have a chance to respond
organizationally, since an organization (we presume they are an
organization) has regurgitated these claims.”

“For starters, we have little understanding of what MP actually
does—what their day-to-day work consists of or what kind of
base-building they’ve accomplished over the past year. The shortage of
statements and the lack of evidence that Maoism is even a force in
Boston makes it hard for us to respond in kind to their attempts to
prove we are not Maoists. Maybe they can prove to the world that they
are Maoists, as the only evidence at our disposal proves only that they
are bloggers who vaguely reference ‘mass work.’ Lack of credentials
aside, what they have produced is worth responding to even though our
response is intended solely to prove them wrong and ourselves right.”

And: “It is no coincidence that fake-communists, bloggers, and
meme-creators are not part of that unity [forged between RGA and
related collectives], including but not limited to MP.”40

Commentary: The above quotes from our group are excerpts from a number
of public documents which summarize our work and key lessons that we
have learned through struggle. We also have a number of documents on our
website which attempt to clarify key theoretical positions and lessons
from the history of the ICM. These documents reflect several years of
Maoist organizing and collective struggle. Rather than critiquing
positions we put forward, the lessons that we have summarized, or our
approach to political work, RGA instead chose to baselessly insinuate
that we are not really a collective. They also claim that they “have
little understanding of what MP actually does.” This is either an
outright lie, or a reflection of their willful ignorance and
unwillingness to read our documents.

We welcome all criticism of our work, and hope to have more in the
future. We are engaged on several fronts of struggle, and have publicly
shared our reflections on our work, hoping to exchange experiences with
others around the country. We do not feel the need to misrepresent what
we are doing or to deceive anyone about our level of activity—such
maneuvers serve to accumulate facebook followers and hangers-on but do
not serve the interests of the people. Comradely, regular collective
discussion and criticism is necessary to develop positive relationships
between collectives. This requires an openness towards criticism and
also a recognition of the fact that we are all capable of making
mistakes and of misunderstanding situations. RGA’s approach to these
questions, by contrast, has been to cast doubt on our group’s existence,
equate our criticism of them with that of facebook trolls and social
democrats, and to thereby negate any possibility that they could be
incorrect.

RGA’s polemic is not really a criticism of our document. Instead, it is
an attempt to discredit our group and claim that we are “bloggers”
instead of an MLM collective, and that therefore their followers need
not critically engage with our arguments. RGA’s decision to respond in
this manner, instead of engaging in a forthright manner with our
polemic, is indicative of their overall approach to politics. Instead of
struggling in a principled manner against criticism with which they
disagree, they seek to use other means to undermine the position of
those who delivered the criticism, such as questioning “credentials” and
petty name-calling. This is the logic of bourgeois experts, who fear to
be unmasked as the charlatans that they are. This sort of approach has
no place in Maoist politics. Mao himself spoke on precisely this point
when he said:

“If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and
criticized, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may
point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If
what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it.”41

MP: “The urgency we must seize is the urgency to address the actual
contradictions among the masses, not as we imagine them, but as they
actually are. Only thus can we handle contradictions among the people in
a manner which develops proletarian power in individuals and emerging
collectives, even if progress may be hard and slow at first. While we
may be relatively weak now, it is only through such work, in addition to
daring to struggle and daring to win in the course of confrontations
with oppressors, that we will become strong.”42

RGA: “MP promotes faulty notions of developing “proletarian power within
individuals.” Proletarian power, for Maoists, means the establishment of
base areas and the dictatorship of the proletariat—it is developed and
conquered through war, not in individuals by resolving contradictions
among the people. This diffused concept of power is a hallmark of
postmodernism and does not at all capture the Maoist understanding and
use of the word “power.”43

Commentary: By cutting off the end of our quote RGA makes it seem that
we are only concerned with individuals and not collective politics.
Perhaps in this and other cases, RGA hoped that people would not bother
to read our polemic, and that by cherry-picking select phrases, they
could successfully portray us as postmodernists. However, anyone who
took the time to investigate our document should be able to see the
deeply unprincipled and opportunist nature of RGA’s writing and approach
to politics.

If there was a misconception that we were implying that we believe mass
struggles and organizing inside an imperialist power represent a form of
“dual-power” with the bourgeois state—we don’t. Prior to revolutionary
overthrow of the bourgeois state—or a dual power44—state power is
monopolized by the capitalists. Our reference to developing “proletarian
power in individuals and emerging collectives” refers to building the
strength of the proletariat and the raising of people’s levels of
consciousness, a process that requires work among individuals and
collectives before the seizure of state power.

To paraphrase Engels’ Anti-Dühring, up to this point we have proceeded
from the assumption that RGA’s persistent habit of misquoting arises
either from their total incapacity to understand things or from a habit
of quoting from memory—a habit which seems to be peculiar to RGA’s
mad-dog attack style, but which is usually described as slovenly. But we
seem to have reached the point at which, even with RGA, quantity is
transformed into quality. When all of these quotes are taken together,
it becomes clear that RGA has deliberately distorted our ideas and
writings in their unprincipled attempts to portray us as Trotskyists and
postmodernists and thus discredit our criticism of their collective.

This chicanery is the essence of their overall approach to politics, and
a thorough negation of MLM. We have shown a few particularly egregious
examples of misquotation and distortion here, but the reality is that
their document One More Time For Those in the Back is full of such
nonsense. The fact that they are unable to deal with our criticisms in a
forthright manner speaks to their inability to deal with political
questions in any way other than by portraying themselves as experts. To
cover this over, they spew bombastic phrases about revolution, Maoism,
and PPW.45 During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution this sort
of revisionist practice was termed “waving the red flag to oppose the
red flag.” Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, Lin Biao, and others all used such
tactics to hide their anti-people politics and capitalist-roader views.
In this regard, RGA’s revisionism is typical.

2. A Few Key Points About MLM

When we wrote RGA is Not an MLM Organization, we had come to the
conclusion that RGA was consolidated to a petty-bourgeois anti-people
politics. Their response to our polemic further confirms this
conclusion. We wrote our polemic not to win RGA over to a principled
line—an unlikely prospect given how deep-seated their revisionism
is—but rather to clarify the nature of their politics to any who
remained confused by RGA’s bombastic phrase-mongering. In this section,
we will criticize RGA’s incorrect ideas on dialectical materialism and
the united front. Once again, the goal is not to win RGA over to an MLM
politics, but rather to show, by way of negative example, the basis for
a Maoist approach to these questions.

Metaphysics and Dialectics

In our original polemic we offered numerous examples of RGA’s
metaphysical view of reality. They have consistently demonstrated a lack
of understanding of the most fundamental aspects of dialectical
materialism, and put forward an idealist and dualistic view of
contradiction. RGA chose to ignore these criticisms in their response,
while simultaneously doubling-down on many metaphysical positions. In
order to clarify this point, so that others can learn by means of RGA’s
negative example, we will reiterate some of these points.

In critiquing RGA’s antifascist organizing we stated,

Instead of engaging in a concrete analysis of the situation in the U.S.,
and working to understand it in relation to past historical struggles in
the ICM, RGA reduces the situation to a non-dialectical opposition
between fascism and revolution. This metaphysical dualism is a negation
of MLM and the dialectical materialist world outlook.46

This dualistic opposition is evident in their statements in a number of
documents. For example, in On the Rise of Right Wing Terrorism in the
US RGA states, “The future which they [the fascists] promise is far
more horrifying than anything we face today. Take heart and do not let
them have an inch. We will win; we have only two choices ahead,
resistance or subjugation.”47 Similarly, in IT WILL NOT FALL UNLESS
YOU HIT IT, they state “When imperialism is threatened it responds with
fascism, the contradictory and antagonistic opposite of communism.”48

By analyzing the contradiction between communist forces and bourgeois
fascism in isolation, RGA posits that there are only two possible
futures for this country, a socialist revolution on the road to
communism, or a fascist dictatorship. This is metaphysics.

As we mentioned in our original polemic, “It is possible that fascist
rule will become dominant in the U.S. It is also possible that forms of
bourgeois democracy may continue for quite a long time, and we should be
clear that this form of rule is also capable of producing more and more
horrifying futures.”49 Bourgeois democracy is and can be quite a
favorable type of rule for the bourgeoisie. Of course there is also a
basis for the U.S. bourgeoisie to transform the state into a fascist
dictatorship, and the development of various contradictions, including
the growth of mass rebellion, could lead them to conclude that this is a
more favorable form of rule. Even now, there are some members of the
ruling class in this country who favor more fascist policies. However,
in order to understand this process of development, we must understand
these contradictions in their complex interrelation, instead of reducing
the situation to a dualistic opposition between communism and fascism.

Dualism is quite different than a dialectical approach. Instead of
seeing the contradictory unity between the opposites, RGA sees only
antagonistic difference. This non-dialectical view of reality leads RGA
to practice “if you are not for us, you are against us” logic. From this
they conclude that petty bourgeois liberals and social democrats are
actually “the left wing of fascism.”50 Dualistic logic leads RGA to
conclude that the existence of some anti-people ideas among petty
bourgeois liberals, revisionists, and other members of the
petty-bourgeoisie means that these groups are in essence fascist, albeit
a “left” wing. Because RGA does not grasp the contradictory nature of
reality, they cannot understand the fact that many liberals,
revisionists, and members of the petty-bourgeoisie also have pro-people
ideas that are in contradiction to their anti-people ideas. What’s more,
the contradictions in our society, and internal to the
petty-bourgeoisie, provide the basis for change, for the overcoming of
the dominance of their anti-people ideas by pro-people ideas. This is a
major reason why the petty-bourgeoisie have historically been considered
potential friends of the people and potential allies of the revolution,
even if pro-people attitudes are not dominant among their ranks at
present.51

Understanding the basis for change is a key aspect of the dialectical
materialist world outlook. However RGA is unable to grasp this basic
point and instead adopts formalistic bases for unity with the
petty-bourgeoisie. For example, in IT WILL NOT FALL UNLESS YOU HIT IT,
RGA concludes that the main question in unifying with members of the
petty-bourgeoisie in antifascist work is whether or not they hold
anti-communist views.52 This stands in stark contrast to the approach
of the leading Maoist parties around the world.

A principled approach to anti-fascism and to the question of unity with
the petty-bourgeoisie looks quite different from RGA’s reductionist
analysis. Such an approach requires dealing with contradictory social
forces as they actually exist in the world, and not pretending that
members of the masses are either “down for the struggle” or in the camp
of the enemy. For example, in 2006-7 the social-fascist CPI-Marxist
(CPM) attempted to displace 20,000+ villagers from Nandigram, West
Bengal, in order to construct a chemical hub for Dow Chemical.
Large-scale mass protests erupted in response. Various forces, including
the Trinamool Congress, the BJP, the Socialist Unity Center of India
(Communist), and Congress party tried to take leadership of the
struggle, positioning themselves in opposition to CPM who at the time
led the “left-front” government of West Bengal. Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh
Committee (BUPC, “Committee Against Evictions from Land”) was founded
and the masses’ protests and refusal to leave their land were met with
armed attacks by cadre of CPM and their hired thugs, who killed and
raped numerous people.

Despite the existence of anti-communist ideas, members of the
petty-bourgeoisie, and even fascists—who populate the BJP and Congress
party—in this resistance movement, CPI (Maoist) saw the need to
involve themselves in this work, because of the genuinely
anti-imperialist and pro-people character of the mass movement. This
character was in contradiction to the petty-bourgeois and revisionist
ideas of some leading forces within the movement, as well as the
comprador, feudal, and fascist ideas of others. But in this complex and
contradictory situation, the Maoists were able to work out a line to
develop proletarian politics, and even to show many members of the
petty-bourgeoisie, who harbored anti-communist views, the basis for
armed self-defense, and for a revolutionary struggle against the Indian
state.53 This dialectical materialist approach stands in sharp
contrast to RGA’s formalistic approach to antifascist work.

RGA’s metaphysical dualism is not limited to their views on antifascism;
it also determines their views on political economy and politics more
broadly. This is apparent in their description of the present situation:
“The world has been divided into two hostile camps: the haves and the
have-nots.”54 This sort of reductionist analysis is in line with an
Occupy approach to politics which reduces the contradictions of
capitalist imperialism to “the 99% against the 1%.” That RGA substitutes
the name “the proletariat”—or in this case the “have-nots”—for the
99% is of little consequence; their approach is extremely reductionist,
regardless of the names used. This sort of reductionism has no place in
Maoist politics. Instead of dealing with the complex reality of
contradictions among the people, including the petty-bourgeoisie and the
national bourgeoisie of oppressed nations—neither of whom can
accurately be described as “have-nots”—RGA reduces the global
situation to a dualistic opposition. This sort of Manichean dualism is
typical of religious mysticism and ultra-leftism, but it not part of a
dialectical materialist outlook.

This non-dialectical analysis of the present situation has real
implications in practice. We have already outlined how RGA’s
reductionist analysis of the contradiction between communism and fascism
leads them to formalistic conclusions about the basis for unity with
petty-bourgeoisie in anti-fascist work. The same sort of formalism is
present in their understanding of the basis for unity with the
petty-bourgeoisie more broadly. For example, RGA stresses the importance
of working with “community leaders” in oppressed nationality
communities—who they describe as “elite home-owners and small business
owners”—despite the fact that these so-called leaders have a “tendency
to push for collaboration with the city, demand reforms of the police,
voting reforms, nonviolence, and so on.”55 While some of these people
may be considered among the camp of the people, others, based on RGA’s
own description, actually take a dominantly anti-people stance and
support the U.S. state. Focusing on working with anti-people forces can
and will alienate members of the masses who are not consolidated to a
reformist and integrationist approach to the struggle against white
supremacy and the U.S. state. Instead of struggling against such
opportunist leadership in oppressed nationality communities, RGA claims
revolutionaries should themselves become opportunists, or as they put it
“remain friendly and have patience and show forgiveness” to these “elite
home-owners and small business owners.”56

Now, we should be clear, there is a real basis for unity with members of
the petty-bourgeoisie and even in certain situations with the national
bourgeoisie of oppressed nations. However, this unity has to be based on
a dialectical materialist analysis of the contradictions in our present
moment and among the people. Instead of seeing the masses as an
undivided unity of the “have-nots”—and thus negating the need to
struggle against the opportunism of so-called “community leaders”—we
need to engage in a concrete analysis of our present moment. The need to
struggle against the integrationist and reformist “leadership” of
oppressed nationality communities was a point clearly understood by
revolutionaries such as the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. RGA’s
metaphysical dualism leads them to toss these historical lessons out the
window, in favor of a liberal unity with opportunist forces.

In contrast to this nonsense, revolutionaries must grasp that these
so-called “leaders” of oppressed nationality communities often function
as a primary ideological drain on the revolutionary ideas among the
masses. These integrationist reformists very often work to dissipate
rebellious ideas, and prevent the becoming antagonistic of
non-antagonistic contradictions through funneling the energy of the
masses into NGOs, charity work, and Democratic Party initiatives.

RGA’s formalistic understanding of the basis for unity with the
petty-bourgeoisie does not end here. Their metaphysical dualism also
leads them to conclude that:

When working with students and other volunteers from alien class
backgrounds they must be helped and sculpted under working-class
leadership. They must be sent down to the countryside. In our conditions
we do not literally mean the countryside, but we mean areas of struggle
where these comrades can become culturally working-class: neighborhoods
and jobs where their soft academic thinking will not allow them to
survive, where they will be forced to begin thinking like workers. They
should be given hard and physically demanding tasks when possible to
break them of their habits of managing others. They should be forced to
become one with the people in a process of liberating them from the
toxic influence of their class spoils.57

While RGA is perfectly fine with an opportunist alliance with the
integrationist “leaders” of oppressed nationality communities, they
confusingly and contrarily believe that students can only participate in
revolutionary work—even on the mass level, as the above quote is from
their discussion of their Serve the People programs—if they are forced
to do hard physical labor. Supposedly this physical labor is the key to
“break them of their habits of managing others,” and other such
petty-bourgeois ideas. As RGA puts it, “understanding the transformative
nature of work, we can help these comrades rectify through a physical
process. We should encourage them to move out of their safe areas and
live among those they serve and to break with their former lifestyles
and customs.”58 In reality, this “one-size-fits-all” approach does
not deal with the nuanced work needed to overcome the anti-people ideas
that people harbor. Instead of the Maoist methods of criticism,
self-criticism, democratic discussion, and debate, RGA sees
rectification as a “physical process” of forcing former students to do
heavy labor and move to proletarian neighborhoods.

A few years ago, our collective broke from a group of people who
attempted to portray themselves as radical by living in proletarian
neighborhoods and doing sporadic acts that affirmed their radical image.
These included organizing occasional potlucks, doing short-term stints
in proletarian jobs, and bragging about confrontations with fascists.
When it came to the actual hard work of fusing with the masses by
investigating mass struggles, methodically talking with people in the
neighborhood about oppression and the potential for resistance, and
abandoning petty-bourgeois safety nets by doing regular proletarian
jobs, they responded antagonistically.

Many members of the petty-bourgeoisie would rather run marathons to
affirm their seriousness and correctness than actually deal with the
anti-people ideas and internal contradictions that prevent them from
fusing with the people. These contradictions are usually exposed very
quickly during democratic discussion and debate of political questions.
Working to unite the masses in resistance to their oppressors is very
difficult work; it entails enduring many defeats, being criticized by
the people hundreds of times, and constantly working to find and create
new ways forward. Through these struggles and setbacks, revolutionaries
transform themselves and the world. This includes the way that we talk,
present ourselves, engage with the people, and how we understand
ourselves and the future trajectory of our lives. This sort of
transformation requires a fundamentally pro-people attitude and
demeanor.

In contrast, many members of the petty-bourgeoisie understand politics
as a formalistic and academic task of finding “the answer” or following
“the correct leadership.” As such, they often prefer obeying orders and
digging ditches “Fight Club” style to actual transformation of
consciousness. This sort of lackeyism is not a Maoist approach to
politics, but it does reflect the dominance of bourgeois ideology in
this country. RGA’s commandist approach to the transformation of
consciousness of those from a student background not only fails to
question, but actually encourages the development of these bourgeois
ideas of power and lackeyism. Instead of working to cultivate pro-people
ideas among these potential allies of the revolution, RGA seeks to
remould them into good lackeys through a “Red” boot camp of sorts.
Instead of pushing people to dare to think and dare to act, RGA pushes
people to dare to lift heavy things and dare to listen up.

There is a need to transform the consciousness of the masses, including
the petty-bourgeoisie. However, in order to do so, we need to unite with
members of the petty-bourgeoisie who see the basis for political
struggle here and now. These cannot be reduced to those who are at
present willing to do heavy manual labor and move to proletarian
neighborhoods—although these can be positive steps towards
revolutionary transformation. To argue otherwise, as RGA does, is to
claim that there is only a basis to unify with those who are willing to
“listen up.” This is evident in their ideas about how anti-people ideas
can be overcome among the people:

Any anti-people practices, some of which will inevitably occur in our
organization, are challenged collectively in organized line struggle or
organized struggle sessions. We focus on advancing the masses in class
struggle and winning over the most advanced to MLM. Once they have come
to accept the ideology, it is through continued struggle that any
backward practices or views are brought to light, challenged, and
corrected. Contrary to the ill-informed notions of MP, we consider the
basis for unity being MLM and not “violence.”59

Because of their metaphysical dualism, RGA sees adherence to MLM—or at
least what they think is MLM—as a precondition for overcoming
anti-people ideas. Relatedly, they see the basis for unity with the
masses as adherence to their “leadership.” In contrast to this, Maoists
can and should unite with members of the masses—including the
petty-bourgeoisie—in various democratic and revolutionary struggles.
The basis for unity must be built on a dialectical materialist analysis
of the contradictions at play in these situations, instead of a
dualistic understandings of the “haves vs. the have-nots” or nominal
adherence to MLM.

RGA’s deep-seated metaphysics are not limited to their approach to unity
with the petty-bourgeoisie or their understanding of the masses.
Dualistic views are fundamental to their politics, and inform their line
on all matters. These views lead them to negate the primacy of internal
contradictions, as is evident in their understanding of the principal
contradiction on the national scale and its relation to our immediate
tasks at hand. They state, “there are contradictions among the people,
but they are secondary contradictions, not the principal contradiction,
which in imperialist countries can only be between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie.”60 From this they conclude that our emphasis on
correctly handling contradictions among the people “seeks to distract
from the contradictions between the people and the enemy.”61

Yes, there is a contradiction between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie, just as there is a contradiction between the people and
their enemies. However, if we are to engage in revolutionary struggle,
and work to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat—that is to
say to transform the dominance of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat
into its opposite—we must do the methodical work required to unite the
people. RGA is unable to understand this because of their dualistic
outlook. Their view negates the primacy of internal contradictions, and
instead leads them to conclude that contradictions with the enemy are
primary over and above the internal contradictions among the people and
within revolutionary organizations. In contrast to this, when discussing
the work of the People’s Liberation Army in On Protracted War, Mao
stated:

Our three major principles for the army's political work are, first,
unity between officers and men; second, unity between the army and the
people; and third, the disintegration of the enemy forces. To apply
these principles effectively, we must start with this basic attitude of
respect for the soldiers and the people, and of respect for the human
dignity of prisoners of war once they have laid down their arms. Those
who take all this as a technical matter and not one of basic attitude
are indeed wrong, and they should correct their view.62

In our document Protracted People’s War is Not a Universal Strategy for
Revolution, we highlighted how Mao’s ordering of these principles is
not arbitrary. The dialectical materialist understanding of primacy of
internal contradictions led Mao to conclude that “disintegration of the
enemy forces” had to be subordinated to the unity of a political
organization and the relationship between this organization and the
people. This lesson is relevant to us today, despite the fact that we
are not currently in an armed conflict with the state.

RGA’s dualism prevents them from grasping this crucial lesson. They fail
to understand the dominance of bourgeois ideology among the people, and
the need to overcome this in order to unify the people. This involves
cultivating a pro-people attitude as well as discussing and debating ideas
with the masses in the course of struggles against oppressors. RGA seems
to believe that this work is secondary to armed confrontations with the
enemies of the people. They therefore seek to replace the dialectical
materialist approach to handling contradictions among the people with the
method of sloganeering and armed propaganda.

should not only understand the particularity of these contradictions in
their totality, that is, in their interconnections, but should also
study the two aspects of each contradiction as the only means of
understanding the totality. When we speak of understanding each aspect
of a contradiction, we mean understanding what specific position each
aspect occupies, what concrete forms it assumes in its interdependence
and in its contradiction with its opposite, and what concrete methods
are employed in the struggle with its opposite, when the two are both
interdependent and in contradiction, and also after the interdependence
breaks down. It is of great importance to study these problems. Lenin
meant just this when he said that the most essential thing in Marxism,
the living soul of Marxism, is the concrete analysis of concrete
conditions. Our dogmatists have violated Lenin's teachings; they never
use their brains to analyse anything concretely, and in their writings
and speeches they always use stereotypes devoid of content, thereby
creating a very bad style of work in our Party.63

Instead of sloganeering and examining a few contradictions in isolation,
revolutionaries must work to understand the interrelation of all the
relevant contradictions at play in a situation. It is only through this
sort of analysis that it is possible to develop a revolutionary
political line and unify the broad masses of people in struggle against
their oppressors. Images of militancy, revolutionary slogans, and an
eagerness for violence are no substitute. To avoid the bog of
metaphysical dualism and the very bad style of work that comes with it,
revolutionaries must practice concrete analysis of concrete conditions.
Otherwise we will be susceptible to the lackeyism which RGA and others
promote.

The United Front and the Chinese Revolution

In our original polemic against RGA, we criticized their approach to
anti-fascist organizing stating that it “reflects the bourgeois premise
that people will not be able to struggle together until they are
confronted with an imminent violent threat to their existence.”64 RGA
responded to this by claiming that our criticism “flies in the face of
the basic Maoist conception of the united front.” Thus, RGA doubled-down
on their position, insisting that the basis for unity in a united front
is the existential threat posed by a fascist threat or imperialist
invasion. Needless to say, this Hollywood-inspired view of political
unity is actually a negation of an MLM understanding of the united
front. Although we wrote on this topic in our original polemic,
additional criticism of RGA’s line can be helpful to further clarify the
matter.

To begin with, we will quote RGA’s response in full:

This notion flies in the face of the basic Maoist conception of the
united front, which is formed when, due to their mutually being
confronted by a greater enemy, the proletariat, peasantry, petite
bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie enter into a temporary alliance
led by the proletariat. Of course there are conditions which can unite
or ally class forces who under normal conditions would not seek unity.
In this process, as described by Mao, the principal contradiction
between the proletariat and bourgeoisie becomes the secondary
contradiction, replaced by the contradiction between the people and
imperialism. Apparently MP believes that this Maoist principle is a
bourgeois one and no unity can be found on the basis of a rising fascist
populism. We suppose they think that Mao too must be considered a
bourgeois thinker influenced by Hollywood.

The threat of fascism is something that is not in the mail: it is on our
doorsteps—not in the form of the state being fascist (and we have
never claimed it is) but in the form of a popular movement for fascism
which must not be allowed to grow simply because the state itself has
not gone fascist. We cannot speculate on conditions in Boston; however,
Texas and other parts of the South are hotbeds for far-right and fascist
movements. They have been known to attack book fairs, May Day
celebrations, and even anarchist bookstores. Essentially MP suggests
that we do nothing in the face of this material threat. Perhaps they
have the disposition to allow fascists to march in the streets of
Boston; however, we are not ashamed that we lack this disposition. In
essence they have issued a polemic which criticizes us for attacking
neo-Nazis. We stand by our politics, which are for unifying as many as
we can against fascists, be they in or out of power.65

There is a lot to unpack here so we will go point by point to
demonstrate how RGA effectively negates the Maoist understanding of the
united front. In doing so, RGA again will serve as our teacher by
negative example. They start by reducing the basis for political unity
between different classes to the fact that they are confronted by “a
greater enemy.” As a result RGA sees the united front exclusively as a
temporary alliance of quid pro quos between mutually antagonistic
classes which is created by the need to defeat a temporarily shared
enemy. What RGA fails to grasp is that the broad masses share a real
interest in not only overthrowing a dominant imperialist or fascist
oppressor but alsoin breaking all chains. This is in contradiction
to other interests of the masses, including for example, the interest of
the national bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation in exploiting workers,
the petty-bourgeoisie in becoming officials and experts, and so on.

Despite these contradictions, the shared interests in overthrowing
oppressors and overcoming oppression more broadly form the basis for
unifying the broad masses in a revolutionary—rather than
bourgeois—united front. A revolutionary united front is forged through
the struggle for proletarian stands among the broad masses, a
transformation which opens up the path towards continuous revolutionary
advance. Through this process, it is possible to coordinate
revolutionary mass initiative across innumerable fronts of struggle
against oppression. By instead reducing the basis for the united front
to the existence of a stronger enemy, RGA sees the situation one-sidedly
and views the united front as an alliance of momentary convenience or as
an alliance forced by a chain-of-command. This is the bourgeois method
of leadership. Such a view sees external contradictions (such as a
common imperialist oppressor) as a basis for unity, thereby negating the
primacy of internal contradictions among the people. In contrast, a
revolutionary view must grasp the need to handle and resolve the
particular, internal, and non-antagonistic contradictions among the
people in relation to external contradictions and oppressors. This
approach unleashes the creativity of the masses by uniting them in
struggle against their oppressor. RGA’s bourgeois approach to the united
front is related to their deeply metaphysical view of reality, which was
analyzed in the above section.

In contrast to this mechanical and reductionist concept of the united
front, we want to share CPI (Maoist)’s views:

The aim of the united front is to isolate, weaken and destroy the main
enemies one by one and win over the maximum possible forces opposed to
the main enemies. Hence, the Party has to pay particular attention to
build as broad a front as possible by uniting with all those classes,
groups, parties, individuals and forces that aspire to achieve the
common aim of the UF, however weak and vacillating the constituents of
the UF may be.66

And

We must always keep in mind that the united front activity in whatever
form is a method of drawing the masses into the struggle and to isolate
and weaken the enemy classes. The Communist International defined the
tactics of the united front as the Leninist method of drawing the masses
into the revolutionary struggle, as a method of establishing closer ties
with the masses. We must find and advance those slogans and forms of
struggle that arise from the vital needs of the masses, from the level
of their fighting capacity at the given stage of development. At the
same time, Communists must not for a moment abandon their own
independent initiative and work of education, organization and
mobilization of the masses. However, to ensure that the toiling masses
find the road of unity of action, it is necessary to strive at the same
time both for short-term and for long-term agreements that provide for
joint action with trade unions of various colours and other
organizations of the working people against the class enemies of the
proletariat. The chief stress in all this must be laid on developing
mass action, locally, to be carried out by the local organizations
through local agreements. At the same time, we must not lose any
opportunity of making use of united front tactics also from above
wherever and whenever it helps in bringing the broad masses into mass
action and in the politicization of the masses.67

A key aspect of the MLM understanding of the united front is the need to
link up the particularities of peoples’ struggles against oppression
with the longer-term goals of revolution and communism. This
understanding provides the basis to unify the broad masses in struggle
against their oppressors. CPI (Maoist) stresses the importance of the
dialectical relationship between the independent initiative of cadre and
the local action of the masses. Through a principled approach to the
united front, the masses can develop political unity in action, that is
to say, in the struggles against their oppressors, and in their efforts
to correctly handle contradictions among their ranks. While some of
these people will develop into cadres, many involved in such struggles
will not. But through taking up political struggle in their particular
situations, and by linking these struggles to the larger struggle
against class enemies and for revolution and communism, these members of
the masses can and will make history. A revolutionary united front is
not a “temporary alliance” but actually crucial to make revolution, and
serves as a basis to unite all the progressive and democratic struggles
in a country.

As if their reductionist understanding of the united front was not bad
enough, RGA’s response to our criticism also demonstrates a lack of
familiarity with the history of the Chinese Revolution and the War of
Resistance Against Japan. RGA states:

Of course there are conditions which can unite or ally class forces who
under normal conditions would not seek unity. In this process, as
described by Mao, the principal contradiction between the proletariat
and bourgeoisie becomes the secondary contradiction, replaced by the
contradiction between the people and imperialism.68

RGA’s claim that objective conditions unite classes forces is indicative
of their metaphysical views. Certain conditions can provide the basis
for class forces to unite that otherwise would not, as was the case
during the Japanese invasion of China. However, it is only the
initiative of revolutionaries which can transform this basis into an
actual revolutionary united front.

In the case of the Chinese Revolution, the Second United Front with the
Kuomintang (KMT) was only established in 1937 after the CCP worked with
Zhang Xueliang and Yang Hucheng to kidnap Chiang Kai-shek and force him
to change his policy during the Xi’an incident. This itself was the
culmination of extensive work among the Chinese masses throughout the
country to develop popular support for a united front against Japan. The
objective conditions for a united front against Japan had existed for
some time before, as the Japanese imperialists had invaded Northern
China in 1931, and rapidly moved southward. Despite the existence of
these objective conditions, it took careful and methodical work by the
CCP based on a dialectical materialist analysis to turn these objective
conditions into an actual united front.

RGA does not grasp this, and seems to lack a basic familiarity with the
history of the Chinese Revolution. This is in line with their tendency
to examine situations as abstract generalities, which we critiqued in
our recent document Protracted People’s War is Not a Universal Strategy
for Revolution.69 This abstract and metaphysical view of the Chinese
Revolution is in part due to RGA’s political orientation, and in part do
to their lazy and sloppy style, which eschews investigating situations
in favor of posturing as “experts.”

This is evident in their discussion of Mao’s views on the Second United
Front in China. RGA claims that Mao argued that “the principal
contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie becomes the
secondary contradiction, replaced by the contradiction between the
people and imperialism.” A basic investigation of Mao’s writing exposes
RGA’s failure to investigate the history of the Chinese Revolution. In
On Contradiction, Mao stated

When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country,
all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite
in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction
between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal
contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes
within the country (including what was the principal contradiction,
between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are
temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position. So it was
in China in the Opium War of 1840, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 and the
Yi Ho Tuan War of 1900, and so it is now in the present Sino-Japanese
War.70

Contrary to RGA’s view, Mao did not state that, prior to the
Sino-Japanese War, the principal contradiction in China was between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Instead he said it was between “the
feudal system and the great masses of the people.” RGA’s confusion on
this is a result of their dogmatism, and their metaphysical world view.
It also stems from a lack of familiarity with the Chinese Revolution and
Mao’s writings. It is only from such a position of extreme ignorance,
dogmatism, and arrogance that RGA could possibly conclude that their
metaphysical musings are a correct MLM understanding of the united
front.

Ultimately RGA’s views are a reflection of bourgeois ideology insofar as
they are based on a surface-level analysis of the present situation and
a quantitative approach to politics. This is evident in their statement
advocating “unifying as many as [they] can against fascists, be they
in or out of power.”71 We should be clear, there are certain
situations where fascists and alt-right groups are—or are on the verge
of becoming—the primary oppressors of the people. In such situations
it is necessary to build armed community self-defense organizations
which provide the people with the means to protect themselves from
attacks by fascist forces. This work should be linked to other
organizing efforts as part of a broad united front.

However, despite significant coverage by the bourgeois media, in the
vast majority of situations in the U.S. organized fascists are not the
primary oppressors of the masses, or even a relevant force in the daily
lives of the masses. In order to draw the masses into political
struggle, and overcome the influence of the bourgeoisie and
petty-bourgeois leadership among the people, we must deal with the
actual oppression and exploitation that the masses face daily. It is the
struggle against these particular forms of oppression and exploitation
which allows the masses to develop unity in action and in struggle. To
instead do as RGA does, and see building “a popular antifascists [sic]
movement” as “our crucial task”72 is to practice dogmatism, not
Maoism. It is to confuse subjectivist fantasies about the present
situation—and speculation about its future trajectory—for objective
reality.

This is particularly evident in RGA’s statement that “the fact is, the
rate of profit has steadily been falling since the 1950s, and the
intensifying global crisis of profitability explains the deepening
crisis of imperialism, which corresponds to rising fascism all over the
world.”73 This is not a dialectical materialist analysis of political
economy, but rather a vulgar mechanical conception of the development of
fascism. RGA’s claim that “rising fascism all over the world” can simply
be explained by the falling rate of profit and an “intensifying global
crisis of profitability” is a negation of the Marxist principle of
concrete investigations of concrete situations. Instead of investigating
the particularity of the development of fascist movements around the
world, RGA puts forward a quantitative and empiricist analysis of the
global situation and calls it Marxist political economy.

We noted in our original polemic how this view of politics is heavily
influenced by the bourgeois ideology of Hollywood films. From this
ideology, RGA concludes that a quantitative approach to anti-fascist
work (“unifying as many as we can against fascists” regardless of
whether they are “in or out of power”) is an application of the MLM
understanding of the united front to our present national situation. The
bankruptcy of this understanding should be evident. Maoists and
revolutionaries in this country must cast aside such illusions and work
tirelessly to draw ever greater numbers of the masses into struggles
against their oppressors, and coordinate these struggles into an
emerging revolutionary united front. Through this approach we can
overcome the grip of bourgeois ideology among the masses, demonstrate
the weakness and shortcomings of petty-bourgeois leadership of mass
struggles, and prepare the grounds for a party with an all-country
perspective and with deep links among the broad masses.

3. Conclusion

While RGA is a teacher by negative example, there are many other related
manifestations of similar logic—including others that masquerade as
Maoist—which hold back revolutionary developments in the U.S. Our
analysis and criticism of RGA’s revisionism and lackeyism is similarly
applicable to these forces. RGA is one particular manifestation of the
larger trend in this country which uses opportunism and falsely
attributes positions to Mao in order to divert potential
anti-revisionist forces towards new expressions of revisionism. This is
often based on the argument that one must find the correct “balance”
between “existing forces,” as is evident in RGA’s quantitative approach
to antifascist work. This approach to politics restrains individuals
from daring to struggle and daring to win, and is often justified
supposedly by the claim that it is “where the masses are at.” This often
takes the form of working with various revisionist forces, but it can
also entail working with various adventurist antifascist groups based on
metaphysical analyses, such as the idea that “most appealing to the
working class is physical violence.”74

Almost every city in the U.S. has an individual or set of individuals
who present themselves as revolutionary but use one mix or another of
NGOism, academicism, or revisionist individualism to justify essential
inaction and isolation. This should be understood as another
manifestation of the same trend which RGA represents. Inaction and
relative positioning to revisionist forces, whether online or in leftist
unity circles—or in relationship to careerist and social power
plays—is often justified by supposed expert and “scientific”
knowledge. These forces work to position themselves as “beyond
criticism” by various forms of posturing. They use this twisted logic to
claim that they are the “best in town” and thereby justify their
isolation from the people and defer the necessary steps of joining with
the masses in their daily struggles. The logic of these individuals is
just as suffocating as collectives like RGA.

The bourgeois world order conditions people to see no alternative to
these forms of chauvinism. The bourgeoisie see no alternative to their
relative rise and fall in relation to other capitalists. As such they
must constantly curry favor with power-holders as part of their never
ending struggle to maintain and advance their position. Without these
relationships of support and patronage they risk falling from their
class orbit. Such logic is also at play in the bourgeois family and in
many personal relationships in our society. It is also the dominant
logic of politics on the so-called “left” including among many groups in
this country who call themselves Maoist. Commandism and lackeyism go
together like two peas in a pod. This approach to politics is in
contradiction with the logic of the proletariat, which sees the need and
basis to break all chains.

There are some who are disturbed by the persistence of bombastic
neo-revisionists like RGA. However, the social force which these
neo-revisionists represent is a reflection of the objective
contradictions of this moment. As Lenin said, “the period of imperialism
is the eve of the socialist revolution; that social-chauvinism
(socialism in words, chauvinism in deeds) is the utter betrayal of
socialism, complete desertion to the side of the bourgeoisie, that this
split in the working-class movement is bound up with the objective
conditions of imperialism.”75 The social-chauvinism of RGA and
related groups and individuals is not “better than nothing,” but
actually serves the interests of the bourgeoisie and represents a
betrayal of the interests of the masses. We must be ready and willing to
unflinchingly oppose and overcome these forces. Some aspiring
revolutionaries may feel that it is “not their place” to play a leading
role in advancing people’s struggle, and instead explicitly or
implicitly advocate deferring to existing forces such as RGA or other
opportunists. But this liberal attitude runs counter to the
revolutionary spirit of the ICM, which Mao so accurately described:

Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put to
the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide. There are three
alternatives. To march at their head and lead them? To trail behind
them, gesticulating and criticizing? Or to stand in their way and oppose
them? Every Chinese is free to choose, but events will force you to make
the choice quickly.76

There is no middle way, no balancing act. It is the revisionists and
social-chauvinists who pretend that “There is No Alternative” (TINA) to
their opportunist maneuvers to cozy-up to the powers that be. These
forces ultimately seek to command their lackeys—and the masses—to
“listen up and do as you are told.” This logic and overall nihilism is
reflected in the approach RGA and others take to the united front.
Instead of working to put proletarian politics in command and coordinate
various struggles in a principled manner, they see the united front as
an alliance of convenience. This manifests in groups and individuals
compromising with bourgeois and revisionist coalitions as well as
approaches to antifascist work which prioritize quantity over quality.

The lack of a revolutionary pole in the U.S. for decades has made this
capitulationist logic appear as the only choice in every established
“leftist” circle—from the ISO to DSA to WWP/PSL to RCP to newer
opportunists such as RGA. This stands in contrast to places like India
where there have been ongoing revolutionary struggles for the past five
decades, and where there is also a history of anti-colonial struggles
going back several hundred years. Despite these obstacles, the basis for
revolutionary advance is right in front of us, even if it is an
unfamiliar road to tread. As the Chinese proverb frequently cited by
Chinese revolutionaries during the Long March goes, “a journey of a
thousand miles begins with a single step.”

We call upon potential comrades who are stuck in quagmires of
revisionism and commandism to seize the time and advance along a
different path. So many deeds cry out to be done, and every moment is
precious. As the world-wide crisis of capitalist imperialism intensifies
there will be even greater openings for revolutionary politics in this
country and internationally. We cannot defer necessary work until the
situation is more favorable, but rather must work tirelessly now to be
in a position to seize upon new openings as they emerge. The people are
struggling here and now, and there is a basis and a need to go among
them and transform these nascent struggles into mass organized
resistance. Only thus can a revolutionary party with an all-country
perspective be built. Seize the moment, do not delay, link up, struggle,
and do not accept revisionism and charlatanism in place of revolutionary
principles.

Among some groups in the U.S., Canada, and Europe there is often
a good deal of confusion about dual power. Many, including RGA often
conflate dual power with base areas. For further clarification of
the difference between these two unique concepts see our document
Protracted People’s War is not a Universal Strategy for
Revolution,
http://www.massproletariat.info/writings/2018-01-19-ppw-not-universal.html↩

For example, Mao stated, “The leading force in our revolution is
the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire
semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie,” he also emphasized that the
dominance of anti-people ideas among members of the
petty-bourgeoisie at one time, does not mean that these ideas will
remain dominant forever: “in times of war, that is, when the tide of
the revolution runs high and the dawn of victory is in sight, not
only will the left-wing of the petty bourgeoisie join the
revolution, but the middle section too may join, and even
right-wingers, swept forward by the great revolutionary tide of the
proletariat and of the left-wing of the petty bourgeoisie, will have
to go along with the revolution.” Mao, Analysis of the Classes in
Chinese Society, MZSW, Vol. 1, p. 13-21. Available online here:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm

Ibid. This accusation itself is another instance of RGA
distorting what we said to glorify themselves. For, in discussing
correctly handling contradictions among the people, we emphasized
how this is done in dialectical relation to contradictions between
the people and their enemies.

For example, we stated: “Proletarian politics cannot be jump-started
with gun-smoke and mirrors; they require working through
contradictions among the people. This requires that revolutionaries
join and further the daily struggles of the masses in workplaces and
neighborhoods. This includes struggle for shorter-term gains which
in themselves are not necessarily revolutionary, such as better
working conditions, wages, or housing conditions. And it also
requires advancing the longer-term interest of the working class in
preparing for revolution.” Mass Proletariat, RGA is Not an MLM
Organization,
http://www.massproletariat.info/writings/2017-12-26-rga-not-mlm.html↩